This is just bringing up to date those who haven't been following the story. The only "new" fact is that a man who was dying of cancer and presumably up to his eyeballs on morphine hadn't been interviewed by the police.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
This is just bringing up to date those who haven't been following the story. The only "new" fact is that a man who was dying of cancer and presumably up to his eyeballs on morphine hadn't been interviewed by the police.

It may not be new to you but i think its new to most of us, he hadn't been named before we just had to guess.

It is improbable that police conducting surveillance on a male brothel ascertained that the customers were raping the rent boys. It is further improbable that as professional sex workers they or their pimps would allow them to be bilked of their fees more than once. Therefore the reference to rape is likely to be lazy journalism.

This does of course move the story on in two respects. Firstly, A man who is willing to pay for sex with young men/boys is more likely to have abused boys than one who has no sexual interest in them. This is the first material that has emerged from any source other than alleged victims, that Brittan was bisexual.

Secondly this is going to fairly raise the fundamental problem at the heart of this inquiry. These rent boys were almost certainly under 21, the then age of homosexual consent. Should the authorities have been prosecuting all under 21 homosexual conduct. If not, what illegal behaviour were they right to turn a blind eye to and what illegal behaviour should they have pursued?

(Original post by nulli tertius)
It is improbable that police conducting surveillance on a male brothel ascertained that the customers were raping the rent boys. It is further improbable that as professional sex workers they or their pimps would allow them to be bilked of their fees more than once. Therefore the reference to rape is likely to be lazy journalism.

This does of course move the story on in two respects. Firstly, A man who is willing to pay for sex with young men/boys is more likely to have abused boys than one who has no sexual interest in them. This is the first material that has emerged from any source other than alleged victims, that Brittan was bisexual.

Secondly this is going to fairly raise the fundamental problem at the heart of this inquiry. These rent boys were almost certainly under 21, the then age of homosexual consent. Should the authorities have been prosecuting all under 21 homosexual conduct. If not, what illegal behaviour were they right to turn a blind eye to and what illegal behaviour should they have pursued?

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It'll happen. Just not a big fan of jumping to conclusions.

Not too long ago there was a rather big thread about how evil the Police were for chasing down a disabled guy. A few months later thy were found to be not guilty but our usual faux outrage brigade weren't bothered.

I'll wait until the enquiry is done....or more evidence comes to light after he's died.